- (1.) The petitioners are the owners of 10/4D, Lala Lajpat Roy Sarani, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as 'demised premises'). It appears that the predecessor in interest of the respondent no. 1, Caltex (India) Limited was a lessee in respect of the demised premises by virtue of a deed of lease executed by and between the predecessor in interest of the petitioners and the said company. It is pleaded that the lease expired in September, 1976. Pursuant to the enactment of Caltex( India) Limited (Acquisition of shares of Caltex (India) Ltd., in India Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1977), Caltex (India) Limited was taken over and amalgamated with the respondent no. 1, M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. Section 7(1) of the Act provided that the rights arising under leases obtained by Caltex (India) limited would vest in the Central Government. Section 7(3) of the Act specifically provided that on the expiry of the term of any lease, if so desired by the Central Government, the same be renewed or continued, so far as may be, on the same terms and conditions on which the lease was originally granted or entered into. Relying on such provisions, Mr. Chatterjee, appearing for the petitioners argued that the aforesaid lease between the parties had become a statutory lease and as the said lease had not been renewed in terms of Section 7(3), as aforesaid, the writ petitioners were entitled to institute the instant writ petition for recovery of possession and other consequential reliefs. He relied on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation vs. Dolly Das, 1999 4 SCC 450 and R. Subramaniam & Ors. vs. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, (in W.P. no. 1131 of 2003 decided on 28th March, 2003) in support of his contentions.
(2.) Per contra, Mr. Kundu learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that the petitioners have already instituted a civil suit for recovery of possession and the respondent Corporation is contesting the same by filing written statement therein. Advocate Commissioner has also been appointed in the said suit. Accordingly, he submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the same.
(3.) In the light of the rival versions the issue which crops up for decision is whether the writ petition in the facts and circumstances of the case is maintainable or not.;